Comparison of higher stratum motivational factors across sexes using the Children's Motivation Analysis Test

Transcription

1 Bond University From the SelectedWorks of Gregory J. Boyle 1989 Comparison of higher stratum motivational factors across sexes using the Children's Motivation Analysis Test Gregory J. Boyle K B Start Available at:

2 1 Comparison of Higher-Stratum Motivational Factors across Sexes using the Children's Motivation Analysis Test Gregory J. Boyle and K. Brian Start University of Melbourne Address correspondence to Gregory J. Boyle, Ph.D., University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.

3 2 Abstract The Children's Motivation Analysis Test (CMAT) is a newly developed objective instrument for quantifying several important motivational dynamic traits among primary school children. The CMAT is a downward extension of the MAT and SMAT instruments, which have put motivation measurement onto a new level of sophistication. These pencil-and-paper instruments avoid the most serious handicap of self-report questionnaires, namely the obvious transparency of items, and concomitant ease of faking good or faking bad, as well as other kinds of response distortion which may result from inadequate self-insight of one's motivational attributes. The CMAT was administered to separate groups of male and female primary school children. Sex differences in means and standard deviations for the primary CMAT subscales, along with separate higher-order factor analyses for each group are reported and discussed.

4 3 In the area of motivation measurement, the series of multidimensional instruments devised by the Cattellian school (Motivation Analysis Test or MAT - Cattell, Horn, Sweney and Radcliffe, 1964; School Motivation Analysis Test or SMAT - Krug, Cattell and Sweney, 1976; Children's Motivation Analysis Test or CMAT - Research Edition, I.P.A.T., 1982) have potentially revolutionized the scientific measurement of dynamic motivational structures in adults, adolescents and primary school children respectively. The MAT which served as the model for both the SMAT and CMAT, is an objective (T-data) questionnaire instrument, wherein the immediate relationship of the respective items to the various dynamic traits being measured, is not apparent to the respondent. This aspect of this series of instruments sets them apart from other pencil-and-paper methods for quantifying human motivational structure, in so far as it is not possible for the respondents to either consciously or unconsciously distort their resultant motivational profiles in any systematic fashion. Objective measures of motivational dynamic traits are especially important in contexts where the respondent is likely to either attempt to fake good or to fake bad (cf. Boyle, 1985c). Moreover, as much of human motivational structure is unconscious according to the Freudian school of thought, it behoves the motivational psychologist to employ objective procedures, as provided uniquely in the MAT, SMAT and CMAT. As a downward extension of the SMAT, the CMAT is a new instrument which enables quantification of ten important ergs (biologically based drives) and sentiments/sems (culturally acquired motivational drives) among primary school

5 4 children. For younger children, the CMAT requires oral presentation of the 230 items therein. However, children in the upper levels of primary school are quite capable of reading and responding to the CMAT items in the normal self-report manner. The CMAT purports to measure six separate ergs (Narcism, Play, Fear, Pugnacity, Curiosity, Assertiveness), as well as four sentiments (Home, Selfsentiment, Superego, School). In comparison with the MAT which measures five ergs and five sentiments, it is apparent that the CMAT gives less attention to the sentiments, as these are only acquired gradually through the processes involved in social conditioning and enculturation. More specifically, the CMAT is comprised of four separate devices (termed Uses, Guesses, Paired Words, Information) which quantify either the unconscious/unintegrated (U) motivational components (Uses and Guesses), or the conscious/ integrated (I) components respectively (Paired Words and Information). As the number of items in each of the Uses and Paired Words devices is 45, while there are 70 items in each of the Guesses and Information devices, it is evident that the instrument is probably highly reliable (future studies will need to address this issue though). Work on the MAT (the parent instrument) has demonstrated considerable evidence of satisfactory reliability and validity (e.g. Boyle, 1984, 198Sa, 1985b; Boyle and Cattell, 1984; Cattell 1985; Cattell and Child, 1975; Kline and Grindley, 1974). As Mazer (1972) pointed out, the MAT is an empirically derived multidimensional instrument whose subscales appear to have real existence structurally, and whose items avoid the weakness of transparency, which is problematic for all self-report questionnaires and inventories (Q-data). Given that the CMAT is directly modelled on the SMAT and

6 5 MAT, it is probable that this instrument is also both adequately reliable and valid (cf. Sweney, Anton and Cattell, 1986; Gorsuch, 1986). One of the more interesting questions relates to the possibility of differing motivational profiles among children of each sex. Several studies have reported systematic sex differences (see Lewis, Feiring and McGuffog, 1986; Stillman, 1982; Weiner, 1983; for separate reviews). However, none has examined motivational similarities and differences using objective measures of dynamic traits (cf. Boyle, 1988). The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to examine differences in motivational structure among upper primary school children in terms of their responses on the CMAT. In addition to direct comparison of the mean subscale scores across sex, the present study also examines the higher-order factor structure across sex in order to provide further insight into the complexities of motivation structure in boys and girls separately. METHOD Subjects and procedure The sample comprised 217 females and 258 males. All were enrolled in Grade 6 from a wide variety of primary schools in both metropolitan and country areas of Australia. The mean age for the female students was yr (SD yr), while that for the males was yr (SD = 1.54 yr). The females varied in age from 10 to 16 yr, while the age range for the males was yr. Some 17 categories of socioeconomic status were represented across both samples. Cases with incomplete data on the CMAT were deleted from the initial samples. The 14 x 14 intercorrelation matrix for the 10 CMAT subscale scores as well as the socioeconomic status (SES) variable, and the three achievement variables for

7 6 Reading (READ), Mathematics (MATH), and Total Achievement (RMT01), served as the starting point for the factor analysis for each sample. The achievement variables were measured as part of a larger study, and were included in the factor analyses in order to provide "hyperplane stuff" as outlined in Cattell (1978, 1986, p. 134), and thereby enabling the factors to be delineated more clearly. In both instances, an iterative principal factoring methodology was employed, together with rotation to direct Oblimin simple structure in accord with the recommendations of Cattell (1973, 1978) and Gorsuch (1983). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The means and standard deviations for each of the variables are presented in Table I for the male and female subjects separately. As is evident, the multivariate statistic was highly significant across all 14 variables thereby justifying interpretation of the univariate statistics with regard to each of the separate variables across sex. Statistically significant between groups effects occurred for the CMAT variables labelled Play, Fear, Pugnacity, Curiosity and Self-sentiment. Of these, males scored more highly only on the Play variable, whereas females produced higher mean scores on each of the remaining variables. On the other hand, no significant sex differences occurred for the CMAT variables labelled Narcism. Home, Assertiveness, Superego and School. Nor were there any significant sex differences on SES. Reading. Mathematics or Total Achievement scores. On the present evidence, however, females at Grade 6 level are more fearful (alert to external dangers), more pugnacious, more curious and have a higher self-opinion

8 7 than males at Grade 6 level, who in contrast, appear to be in general significantly more playful at this development period. The intercorrelations of all 14 variables for each sex separately are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, the highest correlations are among the achievement scores, as would be expected, although SES appears to correlate moderately with Superego (conscience) in each instance. Also it is apparent that several of the CMAT subscales are significantly correlated, and indeed, some of these correlations are quite marked. For example, Home correlates moderately strongly with Assertiveness and Superego, Pugnacity and Curiosity are associated with Self-sentiment, Assertiveness is related to Superego, and SES is moderately correlated with Home, in the case of males. For the female sample, the magnitude of the correlations are generally lower than for males, but some are quite significant. For example, Pugnacity relates moderately to Curiosity and Selfsentiment. With regard to the factor analyses for each sex separately application of the Scree Test suggested that a five-factor oblique solution was the most appropriate outcome in each instance. For the analysis on females, only six iterations of the initial factor matrix were performed (eight iterations for the analysis on males) because communalities exceeded unity beyond this number of iterations. The oblique factor pattern matrices are presented in Tables 3 and 4 for females and males respectively. In the case of the female students, Factor l (which accounted for 22.3% of the variance associated with the unrotated principal components) clearly represented an academic achievement dimension, having significant loadings only on the Reading, Mathematics and Total Achievement variables. Factor 2 (14.5%

9 8 of variance) had significant loadings on Pugnacity, Self-sentiment and School. This factor might be labelled Self-esteem, particularly since the highest loading by far (0.80) was on Self-sentiment. Factor 3 (11.9% of variance) loaded predominantly on Play, Home and Assertiveness, suggesting that a secure family environment enables the child to be both playful and assertive. This factor might be labelled Assertiveness. Factor 4 (7.7% of variance) exhibited significant loadings on Fear, Superego and SES, suggesting a strong association between these three variables. It is interesting to note that Superego loaded significantly on this factor in conjunction with SES, thereby indicating that conscientiousness and moral reasoning may be related to the socioeconomic environment in which an individual is reared. This factor might be labelled Conscientiousness. Factor 5 (6.7% of variance loaded predominantly on Curiosity, along with Pugnacity, and inversely with Narcism. The apparent incompatibility of these subscales is interesting, and suggests that Narcism may hinder Curiosity. As the largest loading occurred for Curiosity, this factor might be labelled Curiosity. In regard to the male students, Factor I (24.0% of variance) exhibited significant loadings on Home, Superego and SES, suggesting an association of these variables for Grade 6 males. In contrast, the motivational orientation towards the parental home was not related to either SES or conscience development (Superego). This factor might be labelled Family Background. Factor 2 (15.5% of variance) loaded only on the three achievement variables and corresponds to Factor I in the analysis on females. Factor 3 (12.5% of variance) contrasted Narcism and Play with Pugnacity, Curiosity, and Self-sentiment. This factor might be labelled Play vs Pugnacity, given the predominance of the loadings on these variables. Factor 3 corresponds with Factor 5 in the analysis on females. Factor 4 (6.7% of variance)

10 9 loaded predominantly on Fear, with smaller loadings on Curiosity and Superego. This factor corresponds to Factor 4 in the analysis on females, and might best be labelled Conscientiousness. Factor S (6.3% of variance) exhibited significant loadings on Play, Assertiveness and School, and has no apparent correspondence with the factors derived from the analysis on females. This factor might be labelled School Orientation, which may be a more important motivational dimension among males than among females in general, since males are usually expected in Western society to follow a career and to provide for a family in their adult lives. Tables 1-4 Taken overall, there are some interesting similarities and differences in the motivational profiles of Grade 6 girls and boys, both at the primary factor level and at the second-order factor level. In general though, the similarities appear to outweigh the differences (which may in part be due to the particular samples of males and females employed in the present study). Further studies into the sex differences in motivation structure which exist overall among boys and girls should provide greater clarity and certainty in this regard. Nevertheless, the present study is the first to utilise an objective measure of motivational dynamic traits among upper-elementary school children, and as such is the first to put the measurement of sex differences in motivation among children onto a firm (objective) empirical and theoretical basis.

11 10 REFERENCES Boyle G. J. (1984) Effects of viewing a road trauma film on emotional and motivational factors. Accident Anal. Prevent. 16, Boyle G. J. (1985a) A reanalysis of the higher-order factor structure of the Motivation Analysis Test and the Eight State Questionnaire. Person. individ. Diff. 6, Boyle G. J. (1985b) A reconsideration of the Cooper/Kline critique of the factor structure of the Motivation Analysis Test. Multivar. expl Clin. Res. 7, Boyle G. J. (1985c) Self-report measures of depression: some psychometric considerations. Br. J. clin. Psychol. 24, Boyle G. J. (1988) Elucidation of motivation structure by dynamic calculus. In Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology (Edited by Nesselroade J. R. and Cattell R. B.). Revised 2nd Edn, pp , Plenum Press, New York. Boyle G. J. and Cattell R. B. (1984) Proof of situational sensitivity of mood states and dynamic traits-ergs and sentiments-to disturbing stimuli. Person. individ. Diff. 5, Cattell R. B. (1973) Personality and Mood by Questionnaire. Jessey-Bass, San Francisco. Cattell R. B. (1978) The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. Plenum Press, New York. Cattell R. B. (1985). Human Motivation and the Dynamic Calculus. Praeger, New York.

12 11 Cattell R. B. (1986) Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action. Advances in Psychology Series, No. 35. North Holland, Amsterdam. Cattell R. B. and Child D. (1975) Motivation and Dynamic Structure. John Wiley Halsted, New York. Cattell R. B., Hom J. L., Sweney A. B. and Radcliffe J. (1964) Handbook for the Motivation Analysis Test, MAT. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, Ill. Gorsuch R. L. (1983) Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Gorsuch R. L. (1986) Measuring attitudes, interests, sentiments and values. In Functional Psychological Testing: Principles and Instruments (Edited by Cattell R. B. and Johnson R. C.). Brunner/Ma.zel, New York. Kline P. and Grindley J. (1974) A 28-day case-study with the MAT. J. Multivar. exp. person. clin. Psychol. l, Krug S. E., Cattell R. B. and Sweney A. B. (1976) Handbook for the School Motivation Analysis Test, SMAT. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, Ill. Lewis M., Feiring C. and McGuffog C. (1986) Profiles of young gifted and normal children: skills and abilities as related to sex and handedness. Top. Early Chldhd Sp. Educ. 6, Mazer G. E. (1972) Review of the Motivation Analysis Test. In The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook (Edited by Buros 0. K.). Highland Park, New Jersey, Gryphon. Stillman C. M. (1982) Individual differences in language and spatial abilities among young gifted children. Dissert. Abstr. Tnt. 43(8), 904.

13 12 Sweney A. B., Anton M. T. and Cattell R. B. (1986) Evaluating motivation structure, conflict, and adjustment. In Functional Psychological Testing: Principles and Instruments (Edited by Cattell R. B. and Johnson R. C.). Brunner/Mazel, New York. Weiner N.C. (1983) Cognitive aptitudes, personality variables, and gender difference effects on mathematical achievement for mathematically gifted students. Dissert. Abstr. Int. 44(A), 3621.

14 13

15 14

16 15